Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Inthru Noronha vs Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. And Ors. on 19 January, 2005 cites

H.R. Adyanthaya vs Sandoz (India) Ltd on 11 August, 1994

On the other hand, the documentary material which was placed by the first respondent on record showed that the duties which were discharged by the petitioner were of an administrative and managerial nature. The Industrial Court has discussed the documentary material which was produced by the first respondent and has had due regard to the duties that were performed by the petitioner in arriving at its conclusion. The Industrial Court was conscious of the position in law that it was not enough for the complainant to show that he did not fall within any of the exclusionary clauses in Section 2(s), but that it would be necessary to establish that the nature of work brought the employee within the substantive part of the provision. This as already noted is consistent with the position in law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in H. R. Advanthaya (supra). In the present case the Industrial Court on the basis of the material before it was justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner did not fall in any one of the categories specified in the substantive part of Section 2(s). The work that was performed by the petitioner was not work of a clerical nature as sought to be contended by him. Nor for that matter did the petitioner fall in any of the other categories set out in the substantive part of Section 2(s). That being the position and consistent with the law which has been laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, the question as to whether the petitioner fell in any one of the excepted categories is of subsidiary importance. Be that as it may, in order to render a full and complete adjudication in this matter, it is also necessary to determine as to whether the work that was performed by the petitioner was one in which he was employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 142 - K Singh - Full Document

Shri Aloysius Nunes vs M/S. Thomas Cook India Ltd. on 16 March, 2000

In Aloysius Nunes v. Thomas Cook India Ltd. the learned Judge accepted the dictionary meaning of the expression "manager" as one who has the conduct or direction of anything, a person who manages a company, department and institution or like entity. A manager has been defined as a person who controls and administers a business or part of a business. The expression implies certain control and authority. That a person has no subordinate does not imply that he has no control or authority.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - F I Rebello - Full Document

C. Gupta vs Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceutical Ltd. on 17 October, 2003

A Division Bench of this Court recently had occasion to revisit the issue in C. Gupta v. Glaxo-Smithklin Pharmaceutical Ltd., 2004(II) CLR 23. In that case, the employee was appointed as an Industrial Relations Executive in the management staff cadre and he was required to represent the management before statutory authorities and other judicial and quasi judicial bodies. He was entitled to several perquisites which were not available to persons who were engaged as workmen and was empowered to authorize payments of substantial amounts for and on behalf of the company. The employee was required to assist the Industrial Relations Manager in developing a framework of settlement with trade unions. The Division Bench held on these facts that the employee was "Clearly a part of the managerial process of the company insofar as his work was used as a tool and aid by the management for a proper conduct of the business of the company". The job of the employee, held the Division Bench, was to secure the interest of the management and he was given independent work which could only be deemed to be managerial in nature.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 24 - R S Mohite - Full Document

Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003

In 'Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, the Supreme Court held that certiorari under Article 226 is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction when the subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none; or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping of crossing the limits of jurisdiction; or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law, rules of procedure or of the principles of natural justice where no procedure is specified, thereby occasioning a failure of justice. The supervisory jurisdiction is not available to a mere error of fact or law unless the error is manifest or apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law or a gross injustice has been occasioned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 3621 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Dhruba Kumar Changkokoti vs Travel Corporation Of India Ltd. And ... on 16 March, 2000

In Dhruba Kumar Changkokoti v. Travel Corporation of India Ltd. 2000(II) CLR 644 where the employee concerned was appointed as in charge of the work of a travel agent in Soviet Union/Eastern Europe, the Court noted that the employee was required to correspond with other organizations on behalf of his employer; that he was looking after the business and was promoting the business of the employer in a certain territory. He was in other words held to be discharging a part of the function on behalf of the employer viz. that of promoting the business and was, therefore, engaged in a managerial capacity.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - F I Rebello - Full Document
1